Analytical Analysis: 

        Bill Joy’s article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” is an argumentative piece on the possible dangers of new twenty-first century technologies. In his argument, Joy presents several views on the possible repercussions of GNR technology- genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robots. He argues that it is necessary for society to confront these new technologies and their possible repercussions. Joy also questions the moral implications of such technologies and urges scientists and society alike to create an ethical code of conduct for developing new inventions. 

        To create his persuasive argument, Bill Joy uses three classical appeals- Ethos, Logos and Pathos. The Ethos appeal is an ethical appeal. It helps the writer to establish credibility, good character, and ensure readers he has a good knowledge on the subject upon which he is writing. The Logos appeal is a logical appeal where the writer uses evidence and thoughtful commentary to justify his argument. Both Ethos and Logos are important for the development of an effective argument. The Pathos appeal is an emotional appeal. An author uses it to reinforce his argument by evoking feelings in his audience. This can be done through an emotional story or using “emotion-stirring language” (? 16).

        In “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy predominately uses Ethos and Logos appeals to create his argument and does so in several ways. To establish he is open-minded, Joy incorporates several excerpts from other writers including Ted Kaczynski and Hans Moravec. He presents these other ideas to substantiate why he believes what he does and to establish that he is well informed. In Kaczynski’s excerpt, Kaczynski postulates on the various dangers of artificial intelligence. He claims that by giving machines the ability to think and make decisions, humans are in effect, relinquishing their control over their own lives. 

        People will let machines make more decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually…decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently (Joy 239). 
 

        Because people will be so dependent upon the machines, they will not be able to turn them off because doing so would be “suicide”. And if people did manage to retain control over the intelligent machines, Kaczynski claims this control would reside in only a small faction. This leads to the threat of a totalitarian society where people are no longer free and at the mercy of a selected few. 

        In response to Kacyznski’s claims, Joy says, “I am not an 
apologist for Kacyznski…He is clearly a Luddite…but I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage” (Joy 239). By this statement Joy acknowledges that he is willing to consider the ideas of others, even those of a murderer. This establishes Joy as receptive man who does not construct his arguments hastily. 

        To establish that he is well informed, Joy refers to many books he has read and quotes many people. These references enable Joy to discuss GNR technology from different views and support his argument. From a novel by Frank Herbert called The White Plague, Herbert writes about a future dystopia where a microbiologist creates a contagious plague that kills “widely but selectively” (Joy 240). In another book titled The Age of Spiritual Machines, written by a man named Ray Kurzweil, a future utopia is presented where humans gain “near immortality by becoming one with robotic technology” (Joy 238). 
In response, Joy questions each author’s novel. To Herbert’s novel Joy asks, “Why [aren’t] other people concerned with the nightmarish scenario?” (Joy 240). The reason he gives is that people have “bias [towards] instant familiarity and unquestioning acceptance” (Joy 240). He believes that people are “accustomed” to living in a society where technology is always advancing, and therefore do not realize the potential dangers of them. Unlike the technologies of the twentieth century, twenty-first century technologies have the ability to self-replicate, like genetically engineered plants and animals. The development of such technologies does not require “large facilities or rare raw materials [either]. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them” (Joy 242). This poses a great threat to humanity if such information were to fall into the wrong hands. Conflicting nations and cultures could easily decimate each other and harm innocent bystanders in the way. 
 
         In response to Kurzweil’s novel, Joy says, “Each of us has our precious things, and as we care for them we locate the essence of our humanity…and by loving one another, people discover why “life is worth living” (Joy 262). If people evolved into machines, Joy questions whether there is any “chance…[people] would…be ourselves or even human?” (Joy 244). Humanity, Joy fears, would be lost forever. 
        
        In the last classical appeal that Joy uses, Pathos, he refers to several tragic historical events to evoke empathy and raise the “awareness of…life” (Joy 248). In one reference, Joy discusses the travesty created by dropping the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II and emphasizes the impetuousness of society in the race to develop new technology. He says that a short time after V-E Day, several physicists moved to stop the development of the bomb; however, Robert Oppenheimer, the lead physicist in the bomb’s construction, was adamant about continuing. Joy says, “[Oppenheimer’s] reason [to continue] seems a bit strange: [He did not] fear…large casualties from an invasion of Japan, but…[believed] the United Nations, which was soon to be formed, should have foreknowledge of atomic weapons” (Joy 250). Trinity, the first atomic bomb test, soon followed “despite a large number of possible dangers” (Joy 250). And within a month of Trinity, two bombs “destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki” (Joy 250). Joy also emphasizes that “it would have been very difficult for President Truman to order a demonstration of the weapons rather than use them as he did- the desire to quickly end the war…was very strong; [however,] the overriding truth [he says] was very simple… ‘The reason that [the bombs were] dropped was just that nobody had the courage or foresight to say no’” (Joy 250). 

        Bill Joy understands that “[humans] are the creators of technologies, driven…despite clear dangers, [and] hardly evaluating…the outcome” (Joy 250). But he questions to what extremes will technology be taken before humans realize they need to think before they create. In his reference to the atomic bomb, Joy notes that the loss of thousands of lives and many more injured were not enough. In a blind rush to create and use the bomb, Oppenheimer, several other physicists and even Truman, ignored all safety precautions which resulted in an overwhelming number of casualties. Joy fears that similar consequences could occur with new GNR technology and uses the atomic bomb as just one of many possible tragic results. “[Humanity] must do more thinking up front if [it is] not to be similarly surprised and shocked by the consequences of [its] inventions” (Joy 262). 

        Bill Joy continues to raise people awareness of new technologies and “[remains] optimistic [humanity] will confront the dangerous issues now before [it]” (Joy 262). His goal is not to terrify people, but to emphasize the need for scientists to think before creating and encourage them to take “personal responsibility” for their inventions (Joy 262). It is Joy’s hope that his argument will persuade many to question the potential effects of technology, and therefore prolong the existence of humanity for hundreds of years to come. 
 

Top

Home Page